What We Eat

[handy]

Its one of those lessons I learned apply here. Where scripture is dogmatic then we can be dogmatic. When it is vague, then we should be vague. When it is silent then we too should remain silent.

Again, I don't disagree with you... except that Scripture isn't silent nor vague on this issue.

Genesis 1:29-30 is quite clear that all ate plants prior to the fall... the animals were not created as food... the plants were.

"Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so."

Genesis 9:3-4 is also quite clear that, after the flood, God gave animals for food, but not "clean" animals... ALL animals.

Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

Scripture is pretty dogmatic on these points...

Also, when it comes to specific mention of animals being killed prior to Genesis 9, the purpose is sacrifice, not eating.

The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. Genesis 3:21

Again, she gave birth to his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of flocks, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the Lord of the fruit of the ground. Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and for his offering; but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard. Genesis 4:2-5

Then Noah built an altar to the Lord, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. Genesis 8:20.

It's not as though I'm making an argument from silence here. Saying that the clean animals were eaten prior to the flood.. now that would be an argument from silence, because you can search from Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 9:3 and you will find no mention, anywhere, of animals being consumed as food.

 

[Free]

It is worth noting that the laws on eating are given to a specific group of people at a specific point in time for a specific reason. Before that time (Gen 9:3-4) and after (Acts 10), all things were declared good to eat.

 

[handy]

I know I'm probably coming off as irritating, but I guess this is just my day to really be a stickler on the subject.

"All" things weren't declared good to eat prior to Genesis 9... the animals weren't declared as such.. The plants were, to be sure.

However, ALL animals were declared as food in Genesis 9... not just the "clean" ones, all animals, every kind. Noah could suck down raw oysters if he wanted too.

I agree with what you're saying Free... just being a stickler about the time frame. The the laws on eating are indeed given to a specific group of people at a specific point in time for a specific reason. That reason has now been fulfilled and that Law is no longer in effect.

Perhaps someone knows the answer to this? Were any of the animals that were declared by the law as "unclean" for eating, animals that were "clean" for sacrifice? Or vice versa..?

Or did God specifically limit the animals that the Israelites could consume to only those animals they were to sacrifice to the Lord?

 

[jasoncran]

for the nation of isreal only. the noahides could eat all that they wished save blood. and nahor and noah and lot and well abraham were under this and all of isreal until the law given at sinai.

for those of you who dont know what a noahide is. its the hebrew idea of a righteous gentile that followed seven laws that are from oral traditon and ironically its nearly the same commands given by the jerusalem council given to the gentile church. that is why i believe in that idea.

 

[chakham]

I know I'm probably coming off as irritating, but I guess this is just my day to really be a stickler on the subject.

"All" things weren't declared good to eat prior to Genesis 9... the animals weren't declared as such.. The plants were, to be sure.

However, ALL animals were declared as food in Genesis 9... not just the "clean" ones, all animals, every kind. Noah could suck down raw oysters if he wanted too.

I agree with what you're saying Free... just being a stickler about the time frame. The the laws on eating are indeed given to a specific group of people at a specific point in time for a specific reason. That reason has now been fulfilled and that Law is no longer in effect.

Perhaps someone knows the answer to this? Were any of the animals that were declared by the law as "unclean" for eating, animals that were "clean" for sacrifice? Or vice versa..?

Or did God specifically limit the animals that the Israelites could consume to only those animals they were to sacrifice to the Lord?

No Handy you are not irratating at all I for one appreciate your thoughts ideas and your grasp of the scriptures. The lesson for me where the vagueness or silence of the scriptures comes into play is when or why the change occured from eat everything to eat only certain meats. The laws of Moses apparently had an effect on Jews and those who sojourned with them even during the life of Yeshua.

Even after the cruxcifiction for instance the vision Peter had when he argued with the voice which told him to eat and he replied: Not so! for I have never eaten anything unclean. Apparently regardless of what was written in Genesis the Laws of Moses took a precedence just as they do today. And on a side note; I find it interesting that someone who knew Yeshua was taught by him and saw him die was still after all those years Torah observant.

Again how or why this change came about is what I was trying to get at when I mentioned when to be dogmatic, vague, or silent. I dont know how to explain the change I just know it did. So I will remain silent

Peace to you and thanks.

 

[chakham]

for the nation of isreal only. the noahides could eat all that they wished save blood. and nahor and noah and lot and well abraham were under this and all of isreal until the law given at sinai.

for those of you who dont know what a noahide is. its the hebrew idea of a righteous gentile that followed seven laws that are from oral traditon and ironically its nearly the same commands given by the jerusalem council given to the gentile church. that is why i believe in that idea.

Hey Jason this is somewhat off topic but it is regards to the Noahide Laws. No where does it mention Pesach. My inderstanding of the Noahide Laws is that stemms from the Rabbis and their oral laws and traditions. Which seem to exclude me from observing Pesach.

But when I read Yehovahs very words he says that I a stranger who sojourns with Israel can keep Passover too. In fact Yehovah said he sees no difference between the native born and me and we shall be under one law. Even I a Gentile can be grafted in and be part of the commonwealth of Israel.

And when a stranger shall sojourn with you, and will keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one who is born in the land; for no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. One law shall be for him who is native born, and for the stranger who sojourns among you. Thus did all the people of Israel; as the Lord commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they. And it came to pass the same day, that the Lord did bring the people of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their armies.

 

[Free]

It is worth noting that the laws on eating are given to a specific group of people at a specific point in time for a specific reason. Before that time (Gen 9:3-4) and after (Acts 10), all things were declared good to eat.

I know I'm probably coming off as irritating, but I guess this is just my day to really be a stickler on the subject.

"All" things weren't declared good to eat prior to Genesis 9... the animals weren't declared as such.. The plants were, to be sure.

However, ALL animals were declared as food in Genesis 9... not just the "clean" ones, all animals, every kind. Noah could suck down raw oysters if he wanted too.

I agree with what you're saying Free... just being a stickler about the time frame. The the laws on eating are indeed given to a specific group of people at a specific point in time for a specific reason. That reason has now been fulfilled and that Law is no longer in effect.

Unless I am mistaken, you have misunderstood me. Note that the point in time I am referencing is the giving of the Law. Before that time all things were okay to eat, as stated in Gen 9. My only point was that before the giving of the Law everything was good for food and once the Law was finished, all animals were declared good for food again.

I should say that I am not at all convinced that meat wasn't also for eating prior to the Gen 9 declaration.

 

[handy]

Unless I am mistaken, you have misunderstood me. Note that the point in time I am referencing is the giving of the Law. Before that time all things were okay to eat, as stated in Gen 9. My only point was that before the giving of the Law everything was good for food and once the Law was finished, all animals were declared good for food again.

I should say that I am not at all convinced that meat wasn't also for eating prior to the Gen 9 declaration.

I think we're on the same page... You view all as OK to eat prior to the law and after the law was fulfilled...

and I understand that you believe meat was for eating between Adam and Noah...

I'm fully in agreement that all was OK to eat between the Flood and the Law... but animals were not considered food until after the Flood.

As far as men eating the flesh of animals prior to the disembarkation of the ark... there is no scriptural support for it. The only context animals are mentioned from the time Adam named them until Noah is in reference to God making clothing from skins for Adam and Eve... which many, including me, consider the first sacrifice for a sin covering.... and the sacrifice of Abel. God calls Noah to take animals, more of the clean ones, on the ark, and then Noah sacrificed the clean animals.

Perhaps I should clarify that I'm not saying no man ever ate an animal prior to Genesis 9:3... but that would be wholly sinful upon their part. After all, the men of that day were wholly unrighteous and doing all kinds of evil things. While it's never mentioned, it could very well be that evil men ate the animals.

But it's clear that God didn't give man animals as food until after the Flood.

 

[Free]

I think we're on the same page... You view all as OK to eat prior to the law and after the law was fulfilled...

That was my initial point.

and I understand that you believe meat was for eating between Adam and Noah...

I'm fully in agreement that all was OK to eat between the Flood and the Law... but animals were not considered food until after the Flood.

As far as men eating the flesh of animals prior to the disembarkation of the ark... there is no scriptural support for it. The only context animals are mentioned from the time Adam named them until Noah is in reference to God making clothing from skins for Adam and Eve... which many, including me, consider the first sacrifice for a sin covering.... and the sacrifice of Abel. God calls Noah to take animals, more of the clean ones, on the ark, and then Noah sacrificed the clean animals.

The Bible is silent on the matter but just because it wasn't decreed doesn't mean there is no Scriptural support for it. It could very well be a part of "having dominion" over "every living thing." In the very least, eating meat was not prohibited.

Perhaps I should clarify that I'm not saying no man ever ate an animal prior to Genesis 9:3... but that would be wholly sinful upon their part. After all, the men of that day were wholly unrighteous and doing all kinds of evil things. While it's never mentioned, it could very well be that evil men ate the animals.

But it's clear that God didn't give man animals as food until after the Flood.

Yet to say that it would have been "wholly sinful" to eat an animal prior to Gen 9 is to go wholly beyond Scripture.

 

[handy]

Yet to say that it would have been "wholly sinful" to eat an animal prior to Gen 9 is to go wholly beyond Scripture.

Yes... you're correct on this, I concede the point and retract the statement.

Nonetheless, it is clear that God did not create the animals to be eaten... Genesis 1:29-30 is clear on that... God gave both man and the animals plants to eat.

And, God didn't open the way for men to eat animals until after Noah got off the ark. Genesis 9:3 is clear on that.

I just can't see how we can or should assume that it was OK to eat animals prior to God saying it was OK to do so, especially since there is no scriptural support for doing so.

Which is less than the step I'm taking of course... I'm not saying that we shouldn't assume that animals were eaten... I'm submitting that animals were not, or at least weren't supposed, to be eaten...and for that, there is scriptural support... we are specifically told what was to be food for both man and beast... as well as the fact that God specifically made a change to include animals.

A logical question can be asked here... if it was already OK for man to eat animals... why would God make a point of telling Noah that he could eat them?

So what does any of this have to do with the OP anyway?

Well, Pard asks: "Is all meat good and clean now? Or is it still as it was? Do gentiles count, even if it still is as it was or are we gentiles free from those "burdensome" rules?"

If we consider the fact that when God finally did give the animals to man to eat, He gave ALL the animals to eat.. clean/unclean didn't come into the equation... This isn't an assumption either, the text clearly states it. Which is why we can be certain that clean/unclean has to do with sacrifices, not food.

We gentiles are most certainly free from the "burdensome" rules, but we also have total freedom to follow them, if we are doing so in the faith that God desired good heath for His people.... And, as I said before, if we want to carry this thought all the way back to the Garden, we can certainly be vegetarian.

I understand that people really struggle about food. We shouldn't, except to whatever extent the Holy Spirit convicts our own hearts. Barring a specific conviction from the Holy Spirit, we should recognize our freedom (and more importantly our brother's and sister's freedom) to eat what ever we please.

 

[Free]

Nonetheless, it is clear that God did not create the animals to be eaten... Genesis 1:29-30 is clear on that... God gave both man and the animals plants to eat.

What is clear is that God did say the plants were for food. What isn't clear is whether or not the animals were for food. The Bible is silent on that.

And, God didn't open the way for men to eat animals until after Noah got off the ark. Genesis 9:3 is clear on that.

I just can't see how we can or should assume that it was OK to eat animals prior to God saying it was OK to do so, especially since there is no scriptural support for doing so.

God said it specifically after the Flood but that doesn't mean it wasn't okay prior to that.

Which is less than the step I'm taking of course... I'm not saying that we shouldn't assume that animals were eaten... I'm submitting that animals were not, or at least weren't supposed, to be eaten...and for that, there is scriptural support... we are specifically told what was to be food for both man and beast... as well as the fact that God specifically made a change to include animals.

Again, there isn't Scriptural support for animals not to be eaten. That God mentions plants for food and not animals doesn't mean that animals weren't for food. I think that man having "dominion" over the animals could very well include killing them for food.

Something else to consider is the sacrifice Abel made. First, how did they know about sacrificing to God since nothing is mentioned in Scripture (of course, there is the argument to Moses writing things in from his point of view)? Second, were not such burnt offerings of meat also partaken of?

A logical question can be asked here... if it was already OK for man to eat animals... why would God make a point of telling Noah that he could eat them?

That is a good question. Could God not just have been reiterating what was already okay for them to eat?

Similarly, how would God just saying this give man the inclination or desire to eat an animal?

So what does any of this have to do with the OP anyway?

Well, Pard asks: "Is all meat good and clean now? Or is it still as it was? Do gentiles count, even if it still is as it was or are we gentiles free from those "burdensome" rules?"

If we consider the fact that when God finally did give the animals to man to eat, He gave ALL the animals to eat.. clean/unclean didn't come into the equation... This isn't an assumption either, the text clearly states it. Which is why we can be certain that clean/unclean has to do with sacrifices, not food.

We gentiles are most certainly free from the "burdensome" rules, but we also have total freedom to follow them, if we are doing so in the faith that God desired good heath for His people.... And, as I said before, if we want to carry this thought all the way back to the Garden, we can certainly be vegetarian.

I understand that people really struggle about food. We shouldn't, except to whatever extent the Holy Spirit convicts our own hearts. Barring a specific conviction from the Holy Spirit, we should recognize our freedom (and more importantly our brother's and sister's freedom) to eat what ever we please.

On this we agree. We are no longer bound by the Law and it's food regulations.

 

[handy]

Free,

Can you give any other example where we use Scriptures in the way you're doing..

First God specifically says a, not b but a and is most detailed about it. ... then later, He opens up b to be included with a... but we are free to assume that b was OK all along???

I don't know why we should read into Scriptures that eating animals was OK... Had God been silent as to what was food, then OK...we can't make an argument from silence. But, He wasn't silent as to what He gave for food... He was quite specific about it...

Examine this passage:

“Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for foodâ€; and it was so."

To man, God gave every plant yielding seed and every tree which has fruit yielding seed. "It shall be food for you".

To the every beast, every bird and everything that moves on the earth (I'm assuming aquatic life to be excepted), He gave every green plant for food.

This is all very specific... the animals were around, if God is instructing Adam what is and isn't food, and the animals were OK to eat at that point, why not say so... especially since He is being very detailed about it... man's food was seed yielding plants and fruit yielding seed. The animal's food was green plants.

When God is giving specific details about something, not being "silent" mind you, but going into detail about the issue... is it really OK to add things that aren't mentioned?

Also, I'm not sure how "having dominion" means killing... especially since Adam was given dominion prior to death entering the world... dominion means rule, subdue, but kill? Anything in the Hebrew to bring killing into this?

After the fall, God still isn't silent as to what Adam could eat:

Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it
All the days of your life.
“Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;
And you will eat the plants of the field;
By the sweat of your face
You will eat bread,
Till you return to the ground


Even though death had entered the world, there is still no mention of being able to eat the animals... only the plants of the field and bread.



As for this:
Something else to consider is the sacrifice Abel made. First, how did they know about sacrificing to God since nothing is mentioned in Scripture (of course, there is the argument to Moses writing things in from his point of view)? Second, were not such burnt offerings of meat also partaken of?

As for the first, now this is something that God hasn't given details on, we can only speculate. Given the conversation that He has with Cain regarding the sacrifices, I've always understood that, even though sin had cast Adam and Eve out of the Garden and brought death into the world, God still seemed to be in close relationship with the family.... That was a regular conversation that God had with Cain... questions, answers, concerns, even attitude was exchanged. While we can only speculate as to how Cain and Able even knew to sacrifice, the most obvious answer is that God told them to, or at least instructed Adam in the matter. There is no way to know for certain though.

The point about partaking of the burnt offerings is a good one... I understand that the person presenting the sacrifice was to partake of it as well...

But, eating something as part of a sacrificial ritual isn't quite the same as looking at it as food. Think of Passover and the paschal lamb.. I'm sure you didn't hear many conversations along the line of "Honey, what's for dinner tonight?" "Oh, I don't know... why don't we have paschal lamb... it's so tasty, why wait for Passover?" Sacrifices, even if consumed, must be viewed differently than regular meals.

And, this is an argument from silence as well. Because Genesis only states that sacrifices were made... nothing is mentioned of anyone eating them at that time. The first mention of anyone eating something sacrifice is Passover, all the way in Moses' time. Given the very detailed instructions regarding how the Lamb was to be selected, sacrificed, prepared, cooked and eaten, it may very well be this was the first time in human history, God called upon His people to eat a sacrificed animal.

Unless someone can show any texts that show people eating sacrifices prior to God specifically instructing them to do so, we really have no way of knowing.

 

[jasoncran]

Hey Jason this is somewhat off topic but it is regards to the Noahide Laws. No where does it mention Pesach. My inderstanding of the Noahide Laws is that stemms from the Rabbis and their oral laws and traditions. Which seem to exclude me from observing Pesach.

But when I read Yehovahs very words he says that I a stranger who sojourns with Israel can keep Passover too. In fact Yehovah said he sees no difference between the native born and me and we shall be under one law. Even I a Gentile can be grafted in and be part of the commonwealth of Israel.

And when a stranger shall sojourn with you, and will keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one who is born in the land; for no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. One law shall be for him who is native born, and for the stranger who sojourns among you. Thus did all the people of Israel; as the Lord commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they. And it came to pass the same day, that the Lord did bring the people of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their armies.

but that isnt needed to be righteous from that angle. if it was then noah and also the men of isreal up to moses wouldnt be right with god.

its actually kinda wrong for you to deny this. what did the ninevites do be righteous? repent and sit in sack clothe and god spared them. jesus said that they shall rise up in the judgment to condemn the pharisees. yet these were gentiles.

 

[Elijah674]

Free,

Can you give any other example where we use Scriptures in the way you're doing..

First God specifically says a, not b but a and is most detailed about it. ... then later, He opens up b to be included with a... but we are free to assume that b was OK all along???

I don't know why we should read into Scriptures that eating animals was OK... Had God been silent as to what was food, then OK...we can't make an argument from silence. But, He wasn't silent as to what He gave for food... He was quite specific about it...

Examine this passage:

“Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for foodâ€; and it was so."

To man, God gave every plant yielding seed and every tree which has fruit yielding seed. "It shall be food for you".

To the every beast, every bird and everything that moves on the earth (I'm assuming aquatic life to be excepted), He gave every green plant for food.

This is all very specific... the animals were around, if God is instructing Adam what is and isn't food, and the animals were OK to eat at that point, why not say so... especially since He is being very detailed about it... man's food was seed yielding plants and fruit yielding seed. The animal's food was green plants.

When God is giving specific details about something, not being "silent" mind you, but going into detail about the issue... is it really OK to add things that aren't mentioned?

Also, I'm not sure how "having dominion" means killing... especially since Adam was given dominion prior to death entering the world... dominion means rule, subdue, but kill? Anything in the Hebrew to bring killing into this?

After the fall, God still isn't silent as to what Adam could eat:

Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it
All the days of your life.
“Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;
And you will eat the plants of the field;
By the sweat of your face
You will eat bread,
Till you return to the ground


Even though death had entered the world, there is still no mention of being able to eat the animals... only the plants of the field and bread.



As for this:
Something else to consider is the sacrifice Abel made. First, how did they know about sacrificing to God since nothing is mentioned in Scripture (of course, there is the argument to Moses writing things in from his point of view)? Second, were not such burnt offerings of meat also partaken of?

As for the first, now this is something that God hasn't given details on, we can only speculate. Given the conversation that He has with Cain regarding the sacrifices, I've always understood that, even though sin had cast Adam and Eve out of the Garden and brought death into the world, God still seemed to be in close relationship with the family.... That was a regular conversation that God had with Cain... questions, answers, concerns, even attitude was exchanged. While we can only speculate as to how Cain and Able even knew to sacrifice, the most obvious answer is that God told them to, or at least instructed Adam in the matter. There is no way to know for certain though.

The point about partaking of the burnt offerings is a good one... I understand that the person presenting the sacrifice was to partake of it as well...

But, eating something as part of a sacrificial ritual isn't quite the same as looking at it as food. Think of Passover and the paschal lamb.. I'm sure you didn't hear many conversations along the line of "Honey, what's for dinner tonight?" "Oh, I don't know... why don't we have paschal lamb... it's so tasty, why wait for Passover?" Sacrifices, even if consumed, must be viewed differently than regular meals.

And, this is an argument from silence as well. Because Genesis only states that sacrifices were made... nothing is mentioned of anyone eating them at that time. The first mention of anyone eating something sacrifice is Passover, all the way in Moses' time. Given the very detailed instructions regarding how the Lamb was to be selected, sacrificed, prepared, cooked and eaten, it may very well be this was the first time in human history, God called upon His people to eat a sacrificed animal.

Unless someone can show any texts that show people eating sacrifices prior to God specifically instructing them to do so, we really have no way of knowing.

Hi good post and seeing that we are created in the Lord's image with a thinking brain, one can consider the preflood ones even after sin had many live to around 1000 years old. (giants too huh!;))

Yet, after the flood God allowed 'clean meats (flesh) to be eaten' and longevity of life quickly went downward. Lev. 11 + Gen. 11:10 on?

But the point is also that **before the flood God 'documented' the clean from the unclean. (and Jas will say where at???;)) and we will say how did he know the clean from the unclean if God had not told him???

--Elijah

 

[handy]

Elijah,

I always believed that folks lived such long lives back then because they fed off those plants God created for food... Not as easily had they stayed in the Garden, merely to pluck it off the trees, but nonetheless the plants that grew then must have burst with nutrition.

After the flood, when the plants came from seeds, not so much.

I also believe that when the new earth is made, we'll feast again on such plants and taste such fruit... not to mention to be able to eat from the very Tree of Life...Rev 22:2

 

[jasoncran]

the tree of life in that context is a tad bit different from the tree of life in genesis. i believe it also has dual meaning in thats a symbol of isreal and that the nations are healed by where the redeemer came from and that is happening now when we repent. i cant say that the tree isnt there but theres alot of problems if that verse is literal as well the fourth temple of god denies that the were always be a sun and moon.

 

[handy]

I don't know, Jason... I really do think it's the same Tree.

theres alot of problems if that verse is literal as well the fourth temple of god denies that the were always be a sun and moon.

You lost me on this...

 

[jasoncran]

I don't know, Jason... I really do think it's the same Tree.



You lost me on this...

it second tree has twelves fruits and twelve leaves and one fruit for each month. the leaves represent the apostles, the first tree doesnt have any description.

the part where the temple comes down also has where the lord is our light and the sun and moon will be no more. this means to the hebrews that we dont need to look at the sun and moon for feasts.its word for word in the book of isiah. i have to work so i will look for the bible verses to show you.